Courtney-Terrel, C.J.These three appeals are from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya affirming the decision of the Munsif in three suits by the landlord against tenants in which the landlord claimed a declaration of title and possession or, in the alternative, the fixing of a fair rent. The suits are analogous and the same points arise in all of them. The defendants claim to be tenants of the landlord and that they are entitled to hold the land rent free. The land in each case is recorded in the Record-of-Rights as rent free. The defendants further assert that for more than twelve years past they have in fact held them rent free. They rely upon the presumption arising from the Record-of-Rights, they claim adverse possession for the statutory period, and they argue that the landlord must prove his possession within twelve years.

2. The following points are urged on behalf of the plaintiff. Firstly, he says that the Record-of-Rights is defective in the matter of the entry as to the rent free nature of the tenancies, in that it lacks the particulars which he says are required by Section 102(j), Bengal Tenancy Act, that is to say, the entry does not state the authority under which the recorded occupants are entitled to hold the land rent free.

3. But it is to be noticed that the introductory words of the section states:

The particulars to be recorded shall be specified in the order, and may include, either without or in addition to other particulars some or all of the following

after which follow a series of paragraphs stating the particulars which may be entered, Section 103-B(3) creates a presumption in favour of the correctness of every entry in the Record-of-Rights. The tenancy must therefore be presumed to be held rent free since that fact is one of the entries in the Record. It is said, however, that the presumption does not apply when once it has been shown that the land in dispute lies in the zamindari of the landlord and reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Privy Council in Jagdeo Narain Singh v. Baldeo Singh AIR 1922 P.C. 272 of 2 Pat, the Right Honble Amir Ali delivering the judgment says:

Once, however, the landlord has Droved that the land which is sought to be held rent free lies within his regularly assessed estate or mahal, the onus is shifted. In the present case, the lands in dispute lie within the ambit of the estate, which admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants, and for which they pay the revenue assessed in the mauza. In these circumstances it lies upon those who claim to hold the lands free of the obligation to pay rent to show by satisfactory evidence that they have been relieved of this obligation either by Contract or by some old grant recognised by Government

4. At first sight this expression of opinion would seem to be in direct conflict with the words of Section 103-B(3), Bengal Tenancy Act but this judgment was explained by Mr. Justice Das of this Court in the case of Stonewigg v. Kameshwar Narayan AIR 1923 Pat. 340. That learned Judge upon an examination of the case before the Judicial Committee states that the Judicial Committee did rely upon some evidence which showed clearly that there was a very careful enquiry made by the Government in the course of certain resumption proceedings which established that there was no one upon the lands with a rent free title, and that it did not support the extreme proposition that where the Record-of-Rights is in favour of the tenant it is still necessary for the tenant to establish by clear evidence that the entry in the Record-of-Rights is correct. It is to be noted that the Subordinate Judge has come to a distinct finding that in fact the defendants have held the land for more than twelve years free from the payment of rent and he finds moreover from the evidence that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors were ever in possession within twelve years from the date of the suit and Article 130, Lim.. Act, fixes the period for the assessment of rent free land at twelve years.

5. It is urged by the plaintiff that there can be no prescription by a tenant against his landlord until the tenancy itself hag terminated -and the former tenant has become a stranger. But this case does not seem to me to involve a question of prescription, The plaintiff, as held by the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge has quite failed to show that he has ever taken rent for these lands and accordingly as was decided in Anant Prasad Jha v. Banke Lal Kumar [1920] 2 U.P.L.R. 58 the Court is entitled to presume from this finding a rent free grant.

6. For these reasons I am of opinion that the decision appealed from is right and that these appeals must be dismissed with costs.

Chatterji, J.

I agree.